Whether or not vehicles under Article 2 of the Road Traffic Act are included in heavy equipment

The mid-term driver shall not be subject to the Road Traffic Act or the Road Transport Vehicle Act, but shall be subject to the mid-term Management Act, and the driver of the mid-term driver shall not be subject to the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 5-31 of the Road Traffic Act.

Article 5-3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 2 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 3 of the Road Transport Vehicles Act, Article 28 of the mid-Term

Defendant

Defendant

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul District Court Decision 74Gohap259 decided May 1, 201

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for one year.

The ninety days of detention before the sentence of the original judgment shall be included in the original sentence.

The execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant's defense counsel is as follows: First, even if the defendant did not have to make the victim non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2 while driving, and such an accident occurred, the defendant did not know the occurrence of the accident, and even if he continued to drive the above accident, the court below acknowledged that the defendant injured the above victims by occupational negligence and escaped even though he knew of the occurrence of the accident. Thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misconception of facts

Second, Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that while the defendant was driving a motor vehicle, motor device, bicycle, or tram under Article 2 of the Road Traffic Act, even if the driver had escaped without taking measures such as aiding and abetting the victim, the court below applied the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. Thus, the court below has violated the Act which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and there is a violation of the Act which affected the judgment.

Third, the judgment of the court below is too unreasonable because the amount of punishment imposed on the defendant is too unreasonable.

Therefore, first of all, the first point of appeal is examined, and in light of the records of this case, the evidence duly admitted by the court below after examining the evidence, and since the defendant's principal facts are sufficiently recognized, there is no error of law as otherwise pointed out in the court below's process of fact-finding, and therefore, the grounds of appeal as to mistake of facts cannot be accepted.

The second ground for appeal is examined as follows:

Article 5-3 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that the purpose of Article 5-3 (1) of the Road Traffic Act is to punish the driver of the vehicle who commits a crime under Article 268 of the Criminal Act due to the traffic of motor vehicles, motor apparatus, bicycle or track vehicles as provided in Article 2 of the Road Traffic Act shall be the subject of the act, and that the driver of the vehicle who escaped without taking measures under Article 45 (1) of the Road Traffic Act such as aiding the injured party, it is evident that the case in which the defendant driven does not fall under the motor bicycle or track under Article 2 (11) and 12 of the Road Traffic Act, and further, Article 28 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes shall not apply to a serious motor vehicle, and Article 28 of the Road Traffic Act shall not apply to a motor vehicle under Article 2 (1) of the Road Traffic Act and Article 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act shall not apply to a motor vehicle under the Road Transportation Act and the Road Transportation Act.

Therefore, the mid-term driver is not subject to the Road Traffic Act or the Road Transport Vehicle Act, but subject to the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and the mid-term driver is not subject to the Road Traffic Act Article 2 of the Road Traffic Act, and is therefore not subject to the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

Nevertheless, the court below, at the time of the original trial by the defendant, ruled that the so-called "the defendant violated the above law and applied it to the defendant. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is not reversed in this respect without further determination of the remaining grounds for appeal by the counsel. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is decided again by the party members after pleading.

The criminal facts of the defendant acknowledged as a member of the company are to be deleted from the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second to the second, while the court below's judgment is the same as the judgment of the court below, and the summary of the evidence is the same as that of the judgment of the court below, and therefore, all of them are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The judgment of the defendant falls under the category of Article 268 of the Criminal Act. Since the crime of this case falls under several crimes, the crime of this case is to be sentenced to the punishment of injury resulting from occupational negligence to the victim non-indicted 1, who is the most severe crime under Articles 40 and 50 (3) of the same Act, the punishment of imprisonment without prison labor shall be selected during the prescribed term, the defendant shall be punished for one year within the term of the punishment, and the defendant shall be included in the imprisonment without prison labor for 90 days within the term of the detention prior to the sentence of the judgment of the court below pursuant to Article 57 of the same Act, and the crime of this case is first committed, and the defendant shall be punished for 90 days during the period of the detention prior to the sentence of the judgment of the court below, and the defendant shall be paid the victim with sufficient money as medical expenses and other damages, and the victim shall not want the punishment of the defendant, and the defendant shall be punished for two years after the judgment becomes final and conclusive pursuant to Article 62 of the same Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Hong Man Pung (Presiding Judge)